Heavily abbreviated good bits that give the idea but leave out most of the argument:
The Finnish revisionist Arvo Tuominen (Arvo Tuominen, Finnish revisionist politician (1894-1981) — strongly hostile to Stalin — comments in his book “The Bells of the Kremlin” on Stalin’s personal self -effacement:
“In his speeches and writings Stalin always withdrew into the background, speaking only of communism, the Soviet power and the Party, and stressing that he was really a representative of the idea and the organisation, nothing more.. . . . I never noticed any signs of vainglory in Stalin.”
(A. Tuominen: ‘The Bells of the Kremlin’; Hanover (New Hampshire, USA); 1983; p. 155, 163).
A letter from Stalin
February 1938
“I am absolutely against the publication of ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’.
The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and off unmerited praise. . But . . . . the important thing resides it the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of ‘heroes’ and the ‘crowd’ is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary (Anarchist) theory. I suggest we burn this book.”
(J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 327).
Bill Bland summarizes his discussion about the cult of personality:
It therefore follows irrefutably that
either Stalin was unable to stop it,
or he did not want to stop it and so was a petty-minded, lying, non-Marxist-Leninist, hypocrite.
The Initiators of the “Cult”
But if the “cult of personality” around Stalin was not built up by Stalin, but against his wishes, by whom was it built up?
The facts show that the most fervent exponents of the ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin were revisionists and concealed revisionists like Karl Radek (Soviet revisionist politician (1885-1939); pleaded guilty at his public trial to terrorism and treason (1937); murdered in prison by fellow-prisoner (1939), Nikita Khrushchev and Anastas Mikoyan (Soviet revisionist politician (1895-1978)
It was Khrushchev who introduced the term “vozhd” (“leader,” corresponding to the German word “Fuhrer”). At the Moscow Party Conference in January 1932, Khrushchev finished his speech by saying:
“The Moscow Bolsheviks, rallied around the Leninist Central Committee as never before, and around the ‘vozhd’ of our Party, Comrade Stalin, are cheerfully and confidently marching toward new victories in the battles for socialism, for world proletarian revolution.”
(‘Rabochaya Moskva’, 26 January 1932, cited in: L. Pistrak: ‘The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev’s Rise to Power’; London; 1961; p. 159).
At the Eighth All-Union Congress of Soviets in November 1936 it was again Khrushchev who proposed that the new Soviet Constitution, which was before the Congress for approval, should be called the “Stalinist Constitution” because “it was written from beginning to end by Comrade Stalin himself.” (‘Pravda’, 30 November 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 161).
In the same speech Khrushchev coined the term “Stalinism”:
“Our Constitution is the Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism that has conquered one sixth of the globe.” (Ibid.).
at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939 as:
“…the greatest genius of humanity, teacher and ‘vozhd’, who leads us towards Communism, our very own Stalin.”
(XVIII s’ezd Vsesoiueznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B). in: p. 174; cited in L. Pistrak: ibid,; p. 164).
and in May 1945 as
“. . . . great Marshal of the Victory.”
(‘Pravda Ukrainy’, 13 May 1945, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 164).
That Stalin himself was not unaware of the fact that concealed revisionists were the main force behind the “cult of persona lily” was reported by the Finnish revisionist Tuominen in 1935, who describes how, when he was informed that busts of him had been given prominent places in the Moscow’s leading art gallery, the Tretyakov, Stalin exclaimed:
“That’s downright sabotage!” (A. Touminen: op. cit.; p. 164).
The German writer Lion Feuchtwanger (Lion Feuchtwanger, German writer (1884-1958) in 1936 confirms that Stalin suspected that the “cult of personality” was being fostered by “wreckers” with the aim of discrediting him:
“It is manifestly irksome to Stalin to be worshipped as he is, and from time to time he makes fun of it. … Of all the men I know who have power, Stalin is the most unpretentious. I spoke frankly to him about the vulgar and excessive cult made of him, and he replied with equal candour. . . He thinks it is possible even that ‘wreckers’ may be behind it in an attempt to discredit him.”
(L. Feuchtwanger: ‘Moscow 1937’; London; 1937; p., 93, 94-95).
Yeah it’s more the 2nd generation, non-revolutionary, leaders who want to cloak themselves in the glory of the first generation who do this.
It’s like wrapping yourself in a flag or sounding off about the “founding fathers”.
Deifying them is a way of claiming you’re the successor to their legacy, asserting your legitimacy with a show of devout pious reverence to avoid anyone looking too closely at your actual policies.
The same shit happened in Ancient Rome with Julius Caesar. His successors literally deified him used that to legitimize the monarchy they soon established that Caesar himself expressly rejected.
Bill Bland: The “Cult of the Individual” (1934-52)
Heavily abbreviated good bits that give the idea but leave out most of the argument:
A letter from Stalin
Bill Bland summarizes his discussion about the cult of personality:
Rather similar to Ho Chi Minh, who wanted a simple, unassuming gravesite but the party gave him a mausoleum instead.
Yeah it’s more the 2nd generation, non-revolutionary, leaders who want to cloak themselves in the glory of the first generation who do this.
It’s like wrapping yourself in a flag or sounding off about the “founding fathers”.
Deifying them is a way of claiming you’re the successor to their legacy, asserting your legitimacy with a show of devout pious reverence to avoid anyone looking too closely at your actual policies.
The same shit happened in Ancient Rome with Julius Caesar. His successors literally deified him used that to legitimize the monarchy they soon established that Caesar himself expressly rejected.
Fuck Krushchev.